Worldwide Legal Compliance for Adult Website Operators
By: Lawrence G. Walters, Esq.
2/18/2026
1. Introduction
The internet has made the world feel small. Case in point: Adult websites are now getting told to follow laws from other countries—even if they don’t operate there. Some U.S. website operators dealing with a patchwork of state-level age verification laws have considered incorporating offshore, in the hopes of avoiding these new obligations. But they’re getting letters from regulators demanding compliance with foreign laws. Some foreign operators, with no physical presence in the U.S., have been sued or threatened with claims by states for not following AV laws.
These competing demands for legal compliance by seemingly endless jurisdictions can make your head spin. This article will provide guidance on who must comply with what laws, in the “small world” of today’s online ecosystem.
2. EU GDPR Lights a Fire
Starting with the adoption of the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”), effective May 25, 2018, the concept of worldwide compliance started to gain traction. The GDPR imposed data privacy regulatory obligations upon website operators that offered goods or services to individuals in the EU, or monitored their behavior. This includes things like offering online services in the EU, accepting EU currency, having a website in EU languages, or tracking EU residents via cookies. The GDPR can apply based on the “establishment” criteria or the “targeting” criteria. The “establishment” criterion applies if the processing of personal data is in the context of the activities of an establishment of a controller or processor in the EU. The “targeting” criterion applies if the processing activities are related to offering goods or services to individuals in the EU or monitoring their behavior. Non-EU organizations must assess their processing activities to determine if they fall under these criteria, and if so, they must designate a representative in the EU. Violating the GDPR can lead to two tiers of fines: up to €10 million or 2% of annual global turnover for less severe violations, and up to €20 million or 4% of annual global turnover for more serious ones. The EU’s Court of Justice has upheld the power to demand data from foreign companies to assess potential violations, reinforcing the idea that companies operating outside Europe must comply with its laws. While many adult companies in the U.S. initially brushed off the idea of compliance with a foreign law, claims against large operators, such as the massive class action case against Microsoft in Ireland, have encouraged wider compliance with the regulation as a risk mitigation effort.
3. UK Online Safety Act Reinforces Extraterritoriality
Next up is the Online Safety Act (“OSA”), passed in the UK, with key duties in force as of July 25, 2025. This law imposes various obligations on online service providers such as user generated content platforms, search engines, and adult website operators. To be considered a regulated platform under the OSA, the operator must have “links with the UK” and not otherwise be exempt. Such UK links can be shown by having a significant number of UK users, the UK being the target or primary market for the services, or the service being capable of being used in the UK coupled with reasonable grounds to believe the service provides a material risk of significant harm to UK residents. Violators can be forced to pay fines up to £18 or 10% of global annual turnover (whichever is higher). Further, Ofcom, the regulator tasked with enforcing the OSA, can apply for a court order blocking access to the service in the UK. Certain criminal penalties also apply for senior managers who fail to comply with the OSA. Ofcom sent hundreds of demands to adult website operators in early 2025 informing them of their legal obligations under the OSA, and demanding compliance with highly effective age checks to prevent minors from accessing adult content.
Some provisions of the OSA could conflict with the First Amendment which applies in the U.S. Thus far, it does not appear that Ofcom has successfully forced a U.S. company to comply with the OSA through a court order. Doing so would require involvement of a U.S. court and potentially a constitutional challenge. However, many adult website operators have voluntarily complied with Ofcom’s demands to avoid loss of service in the UK and potential involvement in expensive legal proceedings.
4. France and Italy Enforce AV Laws Against U.S. Operators
France passed an age verification law, SREN, on May 21, 2024. The regulator, Arcom, began notifying adult website operators in the U.S. of the need for compliance in July 2025 – around the same time as the UK enforcement notices. Those operators that did not implement age verification received formal notices of violation. Failure to comply with SREN can result in penalties and administrative blocking of the affected websites in France. At least one administrative action has been filed against a U.S.-based violator, based on the accessibility of the content in France. This suggests that a physical presence in France is not necessary to assert a violation and institute enforcement proceedings. As with the UK law, no known U.S. court has assisted in enforcing the law. However, given the risks of being blocked in France, many adult website operators have voluntarily complied.
Italy’s age verification enforcement agency, AGCOM similarly began enforcing that country’s age verification law against adult website operators in October 2025, by publishing a list of 48 adult platforms that must comply with the obligations or face sanctions. The list included operators that were located in numerous locations including the US, UK, and Europe, which indicates an intent to enforce the law beyond Italy’s geographic borders.
5. Sweden Bans Online Solicitation of Sex
Also in July 2025, Sweden banned online solicitation of sex acts – even virtually – and imposed criminal prohibitions on violators, including websites that process payments for such sex acts. This new law expanded upon the original “Sex Purchase Act” of 1999, which criminalized the purchase of sexual services in the physical realm. The updated law makes it illegal to purchase sexual acts that are performed online, such as through webcam performances or custom videos. There are no known enforcement actions against foreign website operators, and the law appears limited to imposing criminal penalties. Any attempt to criminally prosecute a foreign website operator would involve a demand for extradition which would be governed by the applicable Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty or other extradition treaties between the relevant nations. Often such treaties require a finding of “dual criminality” meaning the activity must be illegal in both the requesting state (Sweden) and the host state (wherever the offender is located). Since solicitation of virtual sex acts is not widely prohibited throughout the world, formal extradition may be challenging. However, Sweden could point to prostitution laws which broadly prohibit the sale and solicitation of sex acts as grounds for finding dual criminality. Again, given the threat of enforcement, many adult content platforms have banned direct engagements between users and models along with custom video requests in response to the law.
6. States Sue Foreign Operators for Violation of AV Laws
There have been numerous examples of U.S. states seeking to enforce their AV laws against website operators in foreign countries, including lawsuits in Texas, Kansas, and Florida. Any attempt to pursue such a claim in the U.S. triggers an evaluation of “personal jurisdiction” over the foreign company. Merely operating a website that is generally accessible to users in a given state is typically insufficient to allow a U.S. federal or state court to force a foreign operator to defend a claim on the merits. Doing so would violate Due Process in the U.S. Instead, the courts require that the operator have certain “minimum contacts” with the state where the case is pending (the “forum state”) in order to find the existence of personal jurisdiction. Therefore, the operator must have purposely availed itself of the privilege of doing business in the forum state to be forced to defend. Cases involving the issue of personal jurisdiction are highly dependent on the facts. However, evidence showing that the defendant targeted users in the forum state, received a high volume of traffic from the forum state, or regularly entered into contracts with residents of the forum state, could be sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction over the foreign operator. The more connections a website has with a particular state, the more likely it will be required to defend a lawsuit in that state.
Importantly, individuals are often named in addition to companies in U.S. court cases. A separate personal jurisdiction analysis must be conducted for each specific defendant in the case. Therefore, if a U.S. website operator transferred his/her company assets from a U.S. entity to a foreign company, but remained a resident of the U.S., the company may be out of reach while the individual beneficial owner may be subject to suit in this country.
7. Conclusions
The era of “just follow your local law” is over. Regulators throughout the world have realized that they can impose legal obligations outside their own country, and either encourage or force compliance through notifications and threats. Fighting such efforts from afar can be expensive and the risks increase if enforcement actions are ignored. Relocating an operating entity to a foreign jurisdiction is often a hallow effort if the intent is to avoid compliance with local law. Regulators and prosecutors often look past corporate formalities and demand compliance from ultimate beneficial owners. Authorities can trace digital footprints through records, contracts, and transactions using subpoenas and production orders. Authorities in most of the developed world cooperate with each other across international borders.
While worldwide legal compliance is complicated, operators can manage risks by identifying the most pressing concerns, carefully choosing their target markets, and obtaining relevant advice on an issue-by-issue basis. The world may be getting smaller, but there’s still plenty of room for doing business as long as you know the rules.
Lawrence Walters heads up Walters Law Group and represents adult businesses worldwide on U.S. legal compliance issues. Nothing in this article is intended as legal advice. Mr. Walters can be reached via his website, firstamendment.com, or on social media @walterslawgroup.